Wall Street Journal
Posted on 09/03/2014 6:40:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When Republicans want to support their position that Americans have become dependent on welfare, they frequently point to the number of workers on food stamps. In 2012, Senator Rand Paul called the program “out of control.” In 2011, Senator Jeff Sessions told the Daily Caller, “There is no doubt, if this country isn’t willing to look under the hood of the food stamp program as we try to bring our surging debt under control, we are obviously not serious about what we are doing.”
Paul, Sessions and their Republican colleagues are right that the number of food stamp beneficiaries grew considerably after the Great Recession. But that wasn’t a sign of the program growing out of control. It was the expected result of millions of Americans losing their jobs and suddenly not being able to afford basic necessities, like bread and milk.
Just as the number of food stamp beneficiaries rises during recessions though, it falls as the economy improves. And that’s exactly what’s happening now, as the Wall Street Journal reported Monday:
As you can see, we are just past the peak of food stamp enrollment. Over the next few years, the number of food stamp beneficiaries will likely continue to fall. The Congressional Budget Office has forecasted that spending on the program, as a percentage of GDP, will fall to 1995 levels by 2019.
In other words, food stamps aren’t out of control.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
Or that the numbers were clearly pumped-up to get him through an election cycle.
Government handouts are like Heroin, once you start taking them you just can’t stop.
The WSJ. LOL!
Exactly. Saved me some typing!
I wonder why that same logic doesn’t apply to the global warming chart.
Yes.
The ratio is different (we have had a lot of job losses around here recently and John Deere scales down), but you are right.
I actually talked to one woman about this. She said that the benefits were such, her and her family couldn’t afford to go off the Stamps, so she and her partner (can’t remember if she said husband or not) work under the table for cash.
SNAP *IS* an employment wage. SNAP recipients are professional workers.
They are skilled to vote the right way, and I wouldn’t expect the numbers of SNAP workers to decrease anytime soon... they are sorely needed for the 2014 election.
How can they project a dip when mr. mulato is inviting in every unskilled mexican, guatemalan, honduran, el salvadoran, blah, blah , blah there is to suck at the American taxpayer trough?
What percentage of the population is at or near minimum wage?
How many of those at or near minimum wage, are part time?
There are 47 million people on food stamps. Another report says 20% of US households are on food stamps.
Simple math.
US minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.
Raising it to $10 an hour, would be a $2.75 an hour raise.
For a 40 hour week, that's $110 a week. GROSS.
On the check, more like $82.
About $330 a month.
Let's be REAL HONEST.
How many people would be off of food stamps if they were bringing home an extra $330 a month?
How much of that $330 would be spent on cigarettes, pot, beer, alcohol and tattoos?
$330 is only for FULL TIME workers employees.
The majority of minimum wage employees are part time and minors.
Also, for those making over $7.25 but less than $10, their "raise" will be less.
A full time employee, making $9, will only make $40 a week more. About $30 on the check or $120 a month.
The average SNAP benefit is $133.85
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.